Re: [exim] Conditional Address Verification in ACLs

Toby Bryans wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 10:54:00pm +0200, MarkdV wrote:
>> Toby Bryans wrote:

>
> Yes. It works. My understanding is at the point where you do verify =
> sender localpart and domain are the sender email address and my tests
> have born that out, ie I can send mail from a valid address with that
>
> router acting as sender verification and I can't from a non-valid
> address.
>
> Am I missing something obvious? You've got me concerned now as what you
> say makes sense; I'll have to test it all again in case I missed
> something!

Maybe, then again maybe I am. You've got me second guessing now... :)

So I'm going through the documentation with a find comb and I have found
one small piece of info that might, maybe, suggest I'm a little bit
wrong on this one. It's in Chapter 11. in de documentation for
"$domain", where is says:

"$domain is not normally set during the running of the MAIL ACL.
However, if the sender address is verified with a callout during the
MAIL ACL, the sender domain is placed in $domain during the expansions
of hosts, interface, and port in the smtp transport."

So it seems that in a very specific condition - verification _with_
callout - $domain is set in to the sender domain in only a very few
specific places. But you're not doing callout's (assuming the snippets
you've posted are accurate) and you using $domain in other places then
those mentioned. So even this doesn't seem to apply to what you are doing.

So, I'd double check if I where you. And if it turns out that you are
right you may have discovered some undocumented behavior which I think
would be very interesting to report back!

> Thank you very much! I'm currently having a go at solving it myself
> (that way I'll learn the most) with the hints that I have been given by
> you and Phil and I'll mail back with the solution if it works, if not
> I'm sure I'll have more questions.
>
> Many thanks again and I hope I have answered your questions!

You're welcome, and I'm sure as best as you could without going into
more details than you can... (totally up to you off course, don't get me
wrong...)

I hope you figure out a solution that works for you.

Cheers,
Mark.